Dan Rowden wrote:Firstly, Jews have appropriated the term "holocaust".

You don't understand what you are connoting, do you?

Yes, the term 'holocaust' has come to be used much more narrowly than it used to; as a proper noun, it now nearly universally refers to the WWII jewish genocide. However, when you phrase it as 'jews have appropriated it', you are connoting a deliberate concerted action specifically by the jews; when in fact it was the whole West which has been doing this.

That's conspiracy theory territory, dude.

No sane person would deny this.

No sane person would have phrased it the way you did.

Second, I said quite explicitly that a holocaust took place, and that many holocausts took place in WW11 and that WW11 was a holocaust in and of itself. I don't accept certain aspects of the claims relating to "The Holocaust" story.

Which ones?

It's always a better idea to quote the statements of others rather than paraphrase what you think they're said or what their position is.

This is all gonna end in heated abusive rough sex, I can feel it. I'm still trying to work out who's gonna be the receptive partner though.

Only in your wildest fantasies, Jason!

Intoxicating like the odour from the seat of the suit pants of an overweight fifty-something businessman travelling home by train on a hot summer's day.

Exactly. That about sums up the actual worth of what Victor has offered so far.

~

VD:

Oh, I rather think it means quite a bit more. Seems to me that it means you are eager to wield your womanhood and victimhood as a weapon. :)

Bzzt. Wrong again. The statement is a statement of fact, despite how it might appear to you. I would never ask a dog, for example, if he thought he were a dog. It just doesn’t work like that.

The time to prove that you are not a self-appointed victim, dear, was before you whined about my supposed phallic obsession.

See above.

In the real world, we call it 'reading'.

In the real world, I call it selective understanding.

Ooooh, I touched a nerve, didn't I?

Yes, you touched my “moron-meter” nerve. It’s highly sensitive to moronism, and the subject of Marx is an excellent sensor, I reckon. All that from an exclamation mark? My, you are impressive.

Do you have an intellectual crush on Marx?

He’s not at all bad, for a Jew, Victor! Then again, since I'm an anti-semite AFAYCT, he must be a self-hating Jew, right?

Did you hook up with the geniuses because their beards reminded you of Karl's? :)

Ha-ha-ha, ho-ho-ho. You’re so funny!

Yeah, girlie, it's because I say so. i say things like: "Labor theory of value is monumentally wrong" and "Planned economy cannot possibly work because the global economic optimization problem is computationally intractable, and furthermore creates a vast fertile ground for corruption". Additionally, Marx's view of the relationship between capital and labor has proven to be totally, utterly incorrect -- where he saw exploitation spiraling out of control, reality has proven that free market delivers a better life even to proletarians themselves than the planned economies possibly could.*

Ah, I see. What a surprise! Wait, I’m not really surprised.

Just FYI, BTW, I grew up in a country which was built on marxist principles. I saw first-hand what planned economy does, I know where the dictatorship of the proletariat leads.

Now, as an aside to the actual discussion, I am interested in your experiences, but please don't be confused—there's no doubt in my mind that it wouldn't make any difference to the progression of this discussion on my part. Why? Because I am arguing Marx, not your experience. Hence...

OK. Since you allude to such an indubitable understanding of Marx, apparently via this experience alone, show me the money; tell me what you mean by “planned economy,”:

Go ahead, give me that good ole schpiel about how real marxism has never been tried. I need a good laugh.

Dictatorship of the proletariat (seizure of power by the working class [the working class being specifically the exploited class under capitalism]) has been tried, but the question is: where?

In Russia there was a revolution. There was social and economic chaos, but what eventuated from it is neither the same as revolution nor does it necessarily qualify as the apparently elusive “dictatorship of the proletariat.” You see, Marx well knew that one needed CAPITALISM FIRST even if most anyone reading him cannot glean this logical necessity. Consequent to this understanding, I have two questions—one general and the other just for purdy little you. Clearly, your “answers” above are not sufficient:

1) Did what manifested from the revolution actually qualify as dictatorship of the proletariat, and 2) on the basis of what understanding of Marx himself (and I mean just Marx, not Stalin—not even Lenin) are YOU calling it Marxism?

Let me give you a pointer—a precise example of what I am pointing to here and, for the sake of economy, I shall state it aphoristically:

“From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.” –Marxism

“Supply creates its own demand.”—Capitalism

~

*I think the proletarians suffering from the current global economic crisis might beg to differ (not to mention the economic impact of national debt in third world countries).

How much profit do you think was made by trading debt? And do you seriously mean to tell me that Marx’s idea that capitalism culminates in a smaller, wealthier socio-economic class has been proven wrong in reality?

You don’t even touch on the man’s reasoning and you expect anyone to take you seriously (aside from the likes of brokenhead who, of course, clearly hasn’t read Marx at all) despite your failure to address even the most fundamental reasoning on, for example, the relationship between the worker and the means of production—especially someone who has read and thought about Marx's ideas?

Get real, wanker. Nothing but proselytism directed at the veridical dead!

Yeah, girlie, it's because I say so. i say things like: "Labor theory of value is monumentally wrong" and "Planned economy cannot possibly work because the global economic optimization problem is computationally intractable, and furthermore creates a vast fertile ground for corruption". Additionally, Marx's view of the relationship between capital and labor has proven to be totally, utterly incorrect -- where he saw exploitation spiraling out of control, reality has proven that free market delivers a better life even to proletarians themselves than the planned economies possibly could.*

Ah, I see. What a surprise! Wait, I’m not really surprised.

And yet unable to address my specific criticisms of Marx.

OK. Since you allude to such an indubitable understanding of Marx, apparently via this experience alone

Speaking of morons...

I never said or implied that my understanding of Marx comes from experience alone. My point was that, unlike you, I have both the theoretic familiarity with marxism, and the practical experience of living under its consequences.

show me the money; tell me what you mean by “planned economy,”:

I don't have to. Marx never got very specific about exactly how he wanted planned economy to work, he was just unhappy with how the capitalism and free market were working out. My point, however, is that it doesn't matter how the planned economy is implemented. As long as you don't have a situation where the individual incentives of economic agents align with the economic incentives of their agencies, you will have an economy which cannot be 'solved' at a local level -- and thus necessarily the task of economic planning is pushed to an intermediate or higher levels, where is it not solvable efficiently.

Marx criticized the capitalist ownership of the means of production, but it is in fact exactly such ownership which makes an efficient economy possible. Yes, this means that sole proprietorship is the only truly efficient capitalization institution, and joint-stock corporation is not. The latter is an unfortunate compromise between efficiency and size -- sole proprietorships generally simply cannot raise sufficient capital to be big players.

Dictatorship of the proletariat (seizure of power by the working class [the working class being specifically the exploited class under capitalism]) has been tried, but the question is: where?

Catalonia and Makhnovschina, the only two anarcho-syndicalist societies in human history AFAIK (though in Makhnovschina it was more of a proletarian/peasant dictatorship, not just proletariat's). However, neither one was Marxist, and neither one managed to survive for more than 3 years, showcasing the other vulnerability of socialism.

BTW, I bet dollars to donuts that you didn't know about Makhnovschina.

In Russia there was a revolution. There was social and economic chaos, but what eventuated from it is neither the same as revolution nor does it necessarily qualify as the apparently elusive “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Of course not. It simply qualifies as one of the two inevitable outcomes of an attempt at such a dictatorship -- it either falls for being a giant with the feet of clay, like Catalonia and Makhnovschina did, or it becomes totalitarian state.

When you grow up, you just might understand why that is the case.

1) Did what manifested from the revolution actually qualify as dictatorship of the proletariat, and 2) on the basis of what understanding of Marx himself (and I mean just Marx, not Stalin—not even Lenin) are YOU calling it Marxism?

(1) it was one of the two inevitable outcomes of such dictatorships, and (2) just because Marx didn't understand the implications of his own analysis, doesn't make it my fault. History shows that marxist theory, as stated, cannot be implemented, and any attempts will lead either to failure or to totalitarianism. Therefore, to reject the available historical experiences as not 'real marxism' is disingenuous hackery -- something you are quite good at. It's a no-true-scotsman fallacy.

It's like Heinlein had quipped: "If you pray hard enough, water will run uphill! How hard? Hard enough to make it run uphill of course!"

“From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.” –Marxism

A fine principle in theory, but a completely impractical one, precisely because it doesn't align one's individual incentives with one's social role. Capitalist economy has one major advantage -- it works, and it works effectively and efficiently.

“Supply creates its own demand.”—Capitalism

(1) This is a misquotation, dummy, and a misrepresentation of Say's law. (2) As stated, it is the basis of supply-side economics, which is to real economics as astrology is to astronomy.

When you get a clue about economics, dimwit, let me know, OK?

I think the proletarians suffering from the current global economic crisis might beg to differ (not to mention the economic impact of national debt in third world countries).

Yeah, people who ignore facts tend to say this sort of thing a lot.

How much profit do you think was made by trading debt? And do you seriously mean to tell me that Marx’s idea that capitalism culminates in a smaller, wealthier socio-economic class has been proven wrong in reality?

of course. Our society, instead of being a pyramid with a few vastly wealthy capitalists at the top and equally vast impoverished proletarian masses at the bottom, is diamond-shaped with the vast and pretty well-off middle-class. By Marx's definition, I am a proletarian -- I don't own my means of production, even the computer I type on belong to my company. I am my company's CTO, with a house, two cars, four kids, retirement savings, etc. Not bad for a proletarian, eh?

You don’t even touch on the man’s reasoning and you expect anyone to take you seriously (aside from the likes of brokenhead who, of course, clearly hasn’t read Marx at all) despite your failure to address even the most fundamental reasoning on, for example, the relationship between the worker and the means of production—especially someone who has read and thought about Marx's ideas?

Why don't you be specific about what it is exactly you want me to address?

Last edited by vicdan on Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

vicdan wrote:Yes, the term 'holocaust' has come to be used much more narrowly than it used to; as a proper noun, it now nearly universally refers to the WWII jewish genocide. However, when you phrase it as 'jews have appropriated it', you are connoting a deliberate concerted action specifically by the jews; when in fact it was the whole West which has been doing this.

That's conspiracy theory territory, dude.

That is exactly what Dan is connoting, since the Jews control the money, the media, and most of the West's entertainment, no doubt.

But since Dan has reminded me of this:

It's always a better idea to quote the statements of others rather than paraphrase what you think they're said or what their position is.

Let me do just that:

Dan Rowden wrote:Jews have a bunker mentality because their dopey religion demands it.

Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group - it's just that their dopey religion demands persecution and specialness so it is emphasised (much like certain Xian types who love to think of themselves as needing to be persecuted so as to be authentically expressing their beliefs).

I'm thinking of banning the term "antisemitic" (and all variations thereof) from these discussions on the basis of the stupid arrogance of it. Jews deserve to be viewed poorly purely on the basis of their appropriation of the term.

brokenhead: Yes, it's true that the Jews think they are better than we are. So what? Who gives a shit about that?

Dan Rowden:I do to the extent that it means they will willfully propagandize and re-write history and influence others to do so as well. That matters. It matters as much as when Aryan idiots did/do it.

brokenhead: Whoa there, Dan. Every "group" propagandizes as much as it can, doesn't it? And as far as I know, all propaganda is willful.

Dan: I agree with that, but we fall for this propaganda and pay billions to support it, whilst justice for others goes wanting.

Dan wrote:I deny the assertion that the Jews have been persecuted more than any other group. Indeed, I deny it emphatically because it's bullshit.

Dan wrote:It's their entire history they propagandize. I don't even take the WW11 events into account in my judgements.

vicdan wrote:The irony of it, BTW, is that Israeli accomplishments have been disproportionately driven by quasi-socialist kibbutzniks. Where Leyla would see marxism and/or socialism as the downfall of nationalism, in Israel a non-marxist socialism, labor zionism as it's been historically called, ended up buttressing what is perhaps one of the most robust nationalist movements in the world.

And this by a people who historically did not own or work land. To get the immigrant population to fill all the necessary facets of a successful state in so short a time is a testimony to will and not coercion.

I dunno, romanticizing works quite well for me, seeing what Israel has accomplished over its brief existence so far, both in peace and in war.

Romanticizing is wholly unnecessary. Just stick to the facts - they are impressive enough.

Ataraxia wrote:Well if the Zionists are so blase as to where the 'homeland' should be,as you contend, then perhaps this might be a good time to hand over the wailing wall and temple mount to Hamas as a sign of good-will.

I don't know where you got the idea that I am suggesting the Jews are or have ever been blase about the location of a homeland, so this is a nonsensical reply.

What I said was, historically, Zionists explored other options. There was no reason for Jews leaving Europe at the end of the 19th century to seriously consider that the Middle East would ever be the location of a Jewish homeland. Most, in fact, emigrated to the US and many serious Zionists considered that somewhere in America would be the eventual site of a homeland - if in fact there was ever going to be a homeland, as the Zionists have always been a small minority, albeit wealthy, educated and influential. This is not even to mention where others would have them establish a homeland - the British floated the idea of giving the Jews part of Uganda.

Do not forget that the worst pogroms resulted in the deaths of Jews in the low hundreds. This relatively low figure was sufficient to motivate Jews with money to begin purchasing land in the Middle East as well as in America, as well as to establish Zionism as an ongoing movement. Fifty years later, on the heels of a true genocidal process some ten thousand times the magnitude of the Russian pogroms, Zionists took advantage of Truman's propitious support in the UN for a homeland in Palestine when his own State department and the British and the oil companies all were against it.

Dan, you may not believe in the "H" word, but the very existence of Israel proves that a massive Jewish genocide did occur. Just think about it.

It's understandable to try to take Palestinian claims seriously, but to downplay what actually happened that gave birth to Israel is to rewrite history.

Dan Rowden wrote:Jews have a bunker mentality because their dopey religion demands it.

Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group - it's just that their dopey religion demands persecution and specialness so it is emphasised (much like certain Xian types who love to think of themselves as needing to be persecuted so as to be authentically expressing their beliefs).

Wow, he said that? Chalk one up for brazen ignorance of history... he sounds like a Holocaust revisionist. My opinion of Dan has just dropped a few notches, though it was never particularly high in the first place.

I guess jews being denied the right to own land, forcible conversion, pogroms, blood libel, etc. means nothing to him.

I'm thinking of banning the term "antisemitic" (and all variations thereof) from these discussions on the basis of the stupid arrogance of it. Jews deserve to be viewed poorly purely on the basis of their appropriation of the term.

Dan is a moron, and worse, i am beginning to suspect.

I dunno, romanticizing works quite well for me, seeing what Israel has accomplished over its brief existence so far, both in peace and in war.

Romanticizing is wholly unnecessary. Just stick to the facts - they are impressive enough.

The facts are romantic. Making the deserts and marshes bloom? Building a modern high-tech economy from scratch in just a couple of decades? Walking the hills our ancestors walked three thousand years ago? having one of the world's best militaries for its size? World's greatest jet-fighter ace is an Israeli jew. In Yom Kippur war, a tank commander-in-training single-handedly held off an entire syrian tank brigade, destroying between 20 (his tally) and 60 (IDF's tally) tanks in the process.

vicdan wrote:Yes, the term 'holocaust' has come to be used much more narrowly than it used to; as a proper noun, it now nearly universally refers to the WWII jewish genocide. However, when you phrase it as 'jews have appropriated it', you are connoting a deliberate concerted action specifically by the jews; when in fact it was the whole West which has been doing this..

A case could be made that it's even more a Western thing than an Israeli. A bit like talking about "The War" or "a war" which was also common for long after each World War. Example from last February:

The more Qassam [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defence minister, told army radio. - source

The origin of this might very well lay in the translation of the Hebrew shoah into holocaust, for example in the Israeli Declaration of Independence. It's in the Jewish tradition that this term refers mostly to what's done to the Jewish people, and translating the term to an English word might have indeed appropriated it. In my view this is more like an artifact of Western perception of the Second World War, as in the European theater, with Germany in the center, the Jewish holocaust was the most prominent event and this started to dominate modern discourse, movies and books.

I deny the assertion that the Jews have been persecuted more than any other group. Indeed, I deny it emphatically because it's bullshit.

It's their entire history they propagandize. I don't even take the WW11 events into account in my judgements.

Jews have a bunker mentality because their dopey religion demands it.

Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group - it's just that their dopey religion demands persecution and specialness so it is emphasised (much like certain Xian types who love to think of themselves as needing to be persecuted so as to be authentically expressing their beliefs).

Actually, whether you like it or not, Dan is absolutely right when he says this. It’s not his fault it flies over your head*; and, speaking further of facts:

VD wrote:(2) just because Marx didn't understand the implications of his own analysis, doesn't make it my fault. History shows that marxist theory, as stated, cannot be implemented, and any attempts will lead either to failure or to totalitarianism. Therefore, to reject the available historical experiences as not 'real marxism' is disingenuous hackery -- something you are quite good at. It's a no-true-scotsman fallacy.

“As stated”? Oh, you mean that you think there’s a possibility that if someone had enough brains, they might just work out how Marxist theory can be implemented? If so, yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that. Let’s not forget that his analysis takes off with an analysis of capitalism itself, its “workability” notwithstanding and already fucking-well assumed and understood, dumbo.

And let’s not forget the following little beauty of a quote and its implications.

Marx:

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. *It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

(Tell me, do you disagree with it?)

Part of Marxist economic analysis involves, of course, the commodity, use- and exchange-values and the implications of this on social relations.

You can start to address that, if you are capable. If not, don’t fret. I’ll be back to help you along.

~

From the idiot who even himself feels he doesn't deserve a name:

'72 Olympics? What about them...?

[laughs!] Your pathetically propitiative idiocy just gets better with time. No other innocent peoples have suffered such a fate in history, eh? None that deserve as much concern, I guess…

I think you likely suffer from an ethno-religious guilt complex, Herr von brokenbrain.

Leyla Shen wrote:“As stated”? Oh, you mean that you think there’s a possibility that if someone had enough brains, they might just work out how Marxist theory can be implemented?

I would love to meet the person who has done so successfully -- i.e. whose success has been verified by actual implementation. Go ahead. Show me this genius. Take your time, I can wait.

<crickets>

Wow, you are easy...

Part of Marxist economic analysis involves, of course, the commodity, use- and exchange-values and the implications of this on social relations.

I already mentioned the abysmal failure that is the marxist labor theory of value. If you need more details, ask more specific questions. Marxist idiocy doesn't interest me, but to indulge your fresh-minded curiosity, I might give it the time of day, though little more than that. Children should be educated, after all.

Leyla Shen wrote:[laughs!] Your pathetically propitiative idiocy just gets better with time. No other innocent peoples have suffered such a fate in history, eh?

Short attention span, eh? Dan didn't claim merely that jewish persecution was non-unique -- he claimed that it was no different from that suffered by any other group, i.e. wholly unexceptional ('Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group'). Something can be non-unique but still very much uncommon and exceptional.

There have been other peoples who suffered terrible fate, though I don't think any suffered persecution as varied, broad, and prolonged as the jews. Amerindians suffered horribly, but most of the suffering was an unintentional side-effect of European invasion (diseases, which arrived even before Europeans themselves did, as per Diamond's analysis). Armenians and Roma suffered persecution and genocide, but nowhere near the scope and duration of Jews (and your people, turks, made armenians' lives hell).

Even if there are other peoples who have suffered as much as the jews, they would most definitely be an exception, not the norm; and thus Dan's implication that jews didn't suffer anything exceptional is, frankly, delusional lunacy.

Nice try to change the topic though. Par for the course for you, it seems.

Leyla wrote:Your pathetically propitiative idiocy just gets better with time. No other innocent peoples have suffered such a fate in history, eh? None that deserve as much concern, I guess…

Leyla, wasn't it you who started this thread?

And where do you get from anything I have written that I think "no other innocent peoples have suffered such a fate in history"? Specifically - show me where I said that.

We are speaking of Palestine because it is the topic of the thread. We are talking about the Jews because you brought the subject up, Leyla.

Dan: Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group - it's just that their dopey religion demands persecution and specialness so it is emphasised (much like certain Xian types who love to think of themselves as needing to be persecuted so as to be authentically expressing their beliefs).

Leyla: Actually, whether you like it or not, Dan is absolutely right when he says this. It’s not his fault it flies over your head

I think of Elie Wiesel: "To be a Jew is to suffer." Note that the quote is not: "We Jews enjoy suffering."

If Dan is saying that the victim mentality does not win points, I can agree with that. But you have to be careful to differentiate between someone assuming the role of victim to achieve an unwarranted end on the one hand and real victims on the other. It's not so difficult. Neither is it too difficult to understand Zionism as a historical movement with its causes and effects.

But Leyla - you seem to be dragging the discussion back to religion for some reason. I'm just guessing, but I don't think many Palestinians give a crap whom the Jews worship, as long as they do it somewhere else.

VD wrote:I already mentioned the abysmal failure that is the marxist labor theory of value. If you need more details, ask more specific questions. Marxist idiocy doesn't interest me, but to indulge your fresh-minded curiosity, I might give it the time of day, though little more than that. Children should be educated, after all.

Short attention span, eh? Dan didn't claim merely that jewish persecution was non-unique -- he claimed that it was no different from that suffered by any other group, i.e. wholly unexceptional ('Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group'). Something can be non-unique but still very much uncommon and exceptional.

Your essential reply to this is as follows:

…though I don't think any [other peoples] suffered persecution as varied, broad, and prolonged as the jews.

Since when is what you think the same as historical reality and therefore any more historically accurate than what Dan (or anyone else, for that matter) thinks?

Insofar as short attention spans go, perhaps you forget Dan’s qualifier (which I did not quote out of laziness and out of erroneously assuming that you don’t have such a short attention span*) that:

…it's just that their dopey religion demands persecution and specialness so it is emphasised

Following on from that line of thinking (that is, following on from the actual topic at hand) perhaps you also forget this pertinent question:

Marx:"It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. *It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."

(Tell me, do you disagree with it?)

Ah, yes, Victor. Everything’s fine, and all the whining bitches beyond reproach, as long as the world sees reality through Jew-coloured glasses.

brokenhead wrote:But Leyla - you seem to be dragging the discussion back to religion for some reason. I'm just guessing, but I don't think many Palestinians give a crap whom the Jews worship, as long as they do it somewhere else.

Can you at least try, even if you don't know why I am using it, to actually address the material I have provided for that reason?

Leyla's terminology is actually quite common in the fields of sociology, anthropology, comparative religion and such.

AFAICT, she has taken that sense of 'religion' and broadened it even furhter. However, the real point here is that she is equivocating between different senses of 'religion'.

Perhaps because those different senses of religion are all religious in a sense? :-) One can easily broaden any definition while retaining the defining, essential characteristics. Another approach common in literature is to broaden culture, or civilization in similar fashion. That this blurs many of the specifics is to be expected but this is not a solid argument against it.

Fish have flippers. Dolphins have flippers. Ergo, they belong to the same biological taxon!

Or ergo, both their habitats are probably bodies of water. Water is perhaps a good metaphor for religion here, where we feel we belong to, where we plant our roots. And you as 'big fish in a small pond' are terrible at riding a bicycle with those flippers :)

That qualifier, dummy, did nothing to qualify the facticity (or lack thereof) of the above statement; it merely offered an explanation for the ostensible variance between the supposed real level of jewish persecution (no more than anyone else!) and the perceived level thereof (so much!) Dan's statement -- about total un-exceptionality of jewish persecution -- remains just as false after than qualifier as it was before it. Instead, what we gain additional insight into how Dan's delusional mind operates.

If you have reading comprehension troubles, take it up with your highschool teacher.

Following on from that line of thinking (that is, following on from the actual topic at hand) perhaps you also forget this pertinent question

I didn't forget it, i ignored it -- and I ignored it because it's a passage which amounts to little more than semantic hand-waving. Depending on how you read it, it either says nothing concrete, or it is exceedingly specific and utterly false. Kinda like much of PoMo claptrap, but many decades ahead of its time.

What I do notice, girlie, is that you seem to be shying away from actually pursuing the tangents I pushed back on -- such as your ludicrous attempt to catch me on the distatorship of the proletariat' question, the analysis of economic planning vs. capitalism, etc. You got no substance under the surface on those issues, eh? if the opponent doesn't flee, in awe of your profound erudition, you have nothing when your bluff is called.

You shed discussion points like a leper sheds fingers, and with just as unpleasant a result.

No, I’m not interested in you dictating the parameters of the discussion. As Stephen said in Braveheart, “The Almighty says don’t change the subject, just answer the fucking question.” [Edit: oh, look—for proper dramatic effect...]

it's a historical fact that the statement "jews suffered no more than any other group" is false.

Oh yeah, and it's a fact because I say so. :)

Yes, yes—we know!

We know that evidence of the entire history of human existence (and we don’t really even have to go back that far, particularly as far as genocide and what constitutes it is concerned) has been veraciously examined and we have conclusively arrived at this consequently indisputable “historical fact.”

That qualifier, dummy, did nothing to qualify the facticity (or lack thereof) of the above statement; it merely offered an explanation for the ostensible variance between the supposed real level of jewish persecution (no more than anyone else!) and the perceived level thereof (so much!) Dan's statement -- about total un-exceptionality of jewish persecution -- remains just as false after than qualifier as it was before it.

No, it doesn’t.

Instead, what we gain additional insight into how Dan's delusional mind operates.

Only to the delusional mind of a Jew! Actually, that just as easily extends to Christians, as well. But I guess you’ll never be able to address the quote, since it directly addresses the question and the nature of your delusion.

If you have reading comprehension troubles, take it up with your highschool teacher.

[rolls her eyes] Translation: “10, 9, 8…3, 2, 1—[click] when I next click my fingers and you wake up, you won’t remember a thing…]

I didn't forget it, i ignored it -- and I ignored it because it's a passage which amounts to little more than semantic hand-waving. Depending on how you read it, it either says nothing concrete, or it is exceedingly specific and utterly false. Kinda like much of PoMo claptrap, but many decades ahead of its time.

You ignored it because you’re insane, and you’re a insane because I say and you have shown it to be so!

What I do notice, girlie, is that you seem to be shying away from actually pursuing the tangents I pushed back on -- such as your ludicrous attempt to catch me on the distatorship of the proletariat' question, the analysis of economic planning vs. capitalism, etc.

Paranoid, too! There’s no point discussing Marxist economy without first addressing the underlying philosophy, your fallacious reasons for not doing so notwithstanding, numbnuts.

You got no substance under the surface on those issues, eh? if the opponent doesn't flee, in awe of your profound erudition, you have nothing when your bluff is called.

Ah, I see. You like to project, don’t you? Thanks for the confession.

The thing is, you have fled. You flee every time you don’t address a question, dickwad.

So, cut the bullshit. Fact is, I’m still waiting to see the substance behind (rather than your grand proclamations to) your self-proclaimed, indubitable understanding specifically of Marxist theory, as you have been challenged to demonstrate by addressing the questions posed to you directly on the subject, which remain unanswered.

Get your fucking hand off it. Then you might find out what a real discussion is like.

Leyla Shen wrote:We know that evidence of the entire history of human existence (and we don’t really even have to go back that far, particularly as far as genocide and what constitutes it is concerned) has been veraciously examined and we have conclusively arrived at this consequently indisputable “historical fact.”

You are incredibly stupid. I thought you would get the hint, but I guess I have to explicate it for you.

Tio prove Dan's statement false, it is sufficient to show that any group in the history of humanity suffered less than the jews. That much is trivial. Any nation which wasn't deprived of their country suffered less. Any peoples which haven't been legally discriminated against suffered less. You pick almost any nation -- say, England -- and it's trivial to demonstrate that English suffered less than the jews. In fact, it's trivial to demonstrate that, whether jewish suffering is unique or not, it is most certainly exceptional; but for the purposes of proving Dan's (and your) error, a single counterexample suffices.

I think marxism has rotted your brain and destroyed your ability to reason.

Paranoid, too! There’s no point discussing Marxist economy without first addressing the underlying philosophy, your fallacious reasons for not doing so notwithstanding, numbnuts.

meaning, you can't actually defend your claims. You cannot defend planned economy, you cannot defend labor theory of value, you cannot defend marxist theory of societal development -- all you can do is demand that we address the underlying 'philosophy' (oh, what an egregious abuse of such a noble term!) first.

You remind me of a fundy i argued with once, who refused to proceed unless i accepted, as a starting premise, the infallibility of the bible.

The thing is, you have fled. You flee every time you don’t address a question, dickwad.

Girlie, I brought up multiple supporting arguments for my declaration of Marx being an idiot. You have not countered a single one of them. Not one.

So, cut the bullshit. Fact is, I’m still waiting to see the substance behind (rather than your grand proclamations to) your self-proclaimed, indubitable understanding specifically of Marxist theory, as you have been challenged to demonstrate by addressing the questions posed to you directly on the subject, which remain unanswered.

You are quite stupid, you know that? I made a specific statement -- that Marxist theory is crap, here is why; and gave you specific reasons. Your attempts to flank me by arguing some unrelated point of theory are ludicrously puerile.

Are you going to defend labor theory of value or not?Are you going to defend planned economy or not?Are you going to advocate marxist predictions of capitalism's evolution or not?

I would guess 'not'. You can't, so you retreat into circuitous meanderings. You cannot support your idol's idiotic hypotheses, so instead you demand that I engage you on his 'philosophy'. I don't even consider his thinking to be deserving the name, dear! Kant was a philosopher. Quine was a philosopher. Wittgenstein, Plato, Spinoza, Diogenes, Hegel, Carnap, Dennett, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Mill -- all philosophers. Marx was a hack. Kinda like you, but not as dumb.

brainiac wrote:You are incredibly stupid. I thought you would get the hint, but I guess I have to explicate it for you.

Tio prove Dan's statement false, it is sufficient to show that any group in the history of humanity suffered less than the jews. That much is trivial.

Yes, that is trivial logic. Why? I’ll give it to you very slowly, one piece at a time—because:

Any nation which wasn't deprived of their country suffered less.

…many nations have lost as much if not more of their countrymen in defense of their State and country (which two terms can be considered synonymous here), and particularly in WWI before “the Holocaust.”

So, it follows from this fact and your reasoning then that if any given nation FAILS to defend their country, they have suffered MORE than those nations who did not simply because of that failure and not for any other reason.

Of course, one only has documentation on the order of the holy fucking bible to rely on as testament to the historical causes for this particular failure, dispersal and exodus of Jews from the “original” Jewish State. Surely, you don’t really expect any rational individual to simply accept that Jews were wholly victims as a primary historical fact on this basis? Yet there it is in all the holy books, which have given rise from then until this very day to the idea of Jewish nationhood no matter how Jews lived or where ever since; in truth, so long like a dormant enemy-in-waiting, counting in the shadows like no other nation, to pounce at the earliest opportunity. At least, according to the only “historic” records available.

The fact is, Victor, that Israel is singled out on all sides, even your own, precisely because it is the Jewish State. That's exactly and only how they are the exception.

Leyla Shen wrote:[quote"brainiac"]You are incredibly stupid. I thought you would get the hint, but I guess I have to explicate it for you.

I take it you don't see the irony of this posting error. :)

Tio prove Dan's statement false, it is sufficient to show that any group in the history of humanity suffered less than the jews. That much is trivial.

Yes, that is trivial logic.[/quote]Good. So I have already proven that Dan's statement (that jews suffered no more than any other nation) is trivially false, because there exists at least one nation which suffered less. More than one, in fact. Quite a bit more.

The rest of your ramblings on this topic of course miss the point, as it your usual want.

The fact is, Victor, that Israel is singled out on all sides, even your own, precisely because it is the Jewish State. That's exactly and only how they are the exception.

And you don't see a contradiction between claiming that jews are singled out for particular enmity, and Dan's claim that they haven't suffered more than any other nation, of course.

I would also love to hear your theories about why jews are singled out. Anything to do with jewish greed/uppitiness/blood-drinking, by any chance? Surely it's our own fault.

Nor do you address my specific criticisms of marxism. Again. let me repeat them for you:

victor wrote:Are you going to defend labor theory of value or not?Are you going to defend planned economy or not?Are you going to advocate marxist predictions of capitalism's evolution or not?

brokenhead wrote:Dan, you may not believe in the "H" word, but the very existence of Israel proves that a massive Jewish genocide did occur. Just think about it.

I suggest you cease and desist in attempting to speak for me, Broke; you make me sound a whole lot dumber than Victor already thinks I am. Plus, your paraphrasings are tantamount to lies. I don't like the use of the "h" word, for two reasons, firstly, it's not linguistically proper as a holocaust ought refer to a specific kind of event, usually involving fire or great destruction. Dresden was a holocaust; Nagasaki and Hiroshima were holocausts. But, that's a fairly nit-picky objection. My main objection is that the word has now come to be the pathetic property of Jews. I object to that in any circumstance, by any cultural group. My objection isn't about Jews, but about the appropriation of language for such purposes as we're discussing here - by anybody.

It's understandable to try to take Palestinian claims seriously, but to downplay what actually happened that gave birth to Israel is to rewrite history.

Broke, the modern debate over Israel preceded WW11 by decades, as you well know. WW11 was simply a catalyst; Israel was arguably a fait accompli before we knew of these events. Your characterizations of what I'm supposedly "denying" are starting to give me the shits.

vicdan wrote:So I have already proven that Dan's statement (that jews suffered no more than any other nation) is trivially false,[...]

Ok, both you and Broke are now officially being morally and intellectually dishonest, or worse. I can't tell if it's by design or by accident; either way, it's offensive. When the hell did my statement become "jews suffered no more than any other nation"? Please tell me when that miraculous little conversion took place. I have never used the terms "suffer" or "nation" in my statements. More than that, there's a nifty little semantic game being played here that is highly objectionable, but rather typical; that of the conflating of "conflict" and "persecution". Funny that, eh? Any conflict in which Jews are involved immediately becomes them being persecuted and part of their supposed history of persecution. The bombing at the '72 Olympics is Jews being persecuted. I mean, for reason's sake, cut this demented shit out, the pair of you. Jews have variously been involved in conflicts and subjected to persecution (like so many other groups). But oddly, every event that involves Jews is now not merely conflict, but persecution by default. Pah.

My original statement was: "Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group". Not a damn thing either of you have said refutes this. In fact, you've had to change the entire meaning and linguistic facts of what I said to mount an argument. I'm happy for you to disagree with my statement as it was actually made, but can you cut this distortion shit out?

Dan Rowden wrote:Ok, both you and Broke are now officially being morally and intellectually dishonest, or worse. I can't tell if it's by design or by accident; either way, it's offensive. When the hell did my statement become "jews suffered no more than any other nation"? Please tell me when that miraculous little conversion took place. I have never used the terms "suffer" or "nation" in my statements.

You had said: "Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group". Now any nation is a group, so that part of my paraphrase is totally correct -- if they suffered no more than nay other group, then they certainly suffered no more than any other nation.

As to 'suffer' vs 'be persecuted'... Show me a material difference between the two phrasings, and I will take your indignant outburst under advisement.

As it is, the way I paraphrased it, looks like a substantively correct interpretation of your earlier statement.

More than that, there's a nifty little semantic game being played here that is highly objectionable, but rather typical; that of the conflating of "conflict" and "persecution". Funny that, eh? Any conflict in which Jews are involved immediately becomes them being persecuted and part of their supposed history of persecution.

Show me a single place where I equated conflict with persecution. I cited some examples of jewish persecution for you (denied the right to own land, forcible conversion, pogroms, blood libel) -- every single one of them the real article.

My original statement was: "Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group". Not a damn thing either of you have said refutes this.

Wow, talka bout dishonesty.

Any number of groups have been historically persecuted less than the jews -- for one, virtually every nation which now exists. For example, English have been historically persecuted less than the jews -- there have not been widespread anti-English pogroms, no blood libel or similar accusation has been leveled against them, they have not been expelled from their homeland, nor denied the right to own land, nor subjected to genocide.

I am beginning to think that you are an autistic idiot, Dan. Even by this most obvious of metrics -- genocide -- most groups have been persecuted less than the jews, because most groups were never subjected to anyone's serious attempt to exterminate them wholesale. Genuine genocide attempts are comparatively rare, and the Holocaust is one of the three greatest genocides in history (along with amerindian extermination and Holodomor).

Dan Rowden wrote:Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group

I originally interpreted this statement to mean "Jews are not the most persecuted group in history". It seems that Vic has interpreted it differently - I'm not quite sure how but I suspect something like "Jews have suffered no more than any other group in history". On reflection, what Dan meant is probably midway between these interpretations - something like "The historical suffering of the Jews is not particularly significant when compared to the typical suffering of all other groups of people". Dan, can you clarify what you actually meant?

Dan Rowden wrote:Ok, both you and Broke are now officially being morally and intellectually dishonest, or worse. I can't tell if it's by design or by accident; either way, it's offensive. When the hell did my statement become "jews suffered no more than any other nation"? Please tell me when that miraculous little conversion took place. I have never used the terms "suffer" or "nation" in my statements.

You had said: "Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group". Now any nation is a group, so that part of my paraphrase is totally correct -- if they suffered no more than nay other group, then they certainly suffered no more than any other nation.

As to 'suffer' vs 'be persecuted'... Show me a material difference between the two phrasings, and I will take your indignant outburst under advisement.

You can't possibly be serious. I'm not sure I can even bring myself to respond to this. Let's just say it would be technically possible for me to agree to the hypothetical assertion that Jews have suffered more than any other group, without my own statement being refuted or contradicted thereby. A group could be in continual conflict, and continual suffering thereby, without there ever being actual persecution involved.

As it is, the way I paraphrased it, looks like a substantively correct interpretation of your earlier statement.

It's not even close and does not reflect my intention even remotely. I was specifically responding to the idea that Jews have been historically persecuted more than anyone else. This has got exactly nothing to do with how much they may or may not have "suffered" though their history.

More than that, there's a nifty little semantic game being played here that is highly objectionable, but rather typical; that of the conflating of "conflict" and "persecution". Funny that, eh? Any conflict in which Jews are involved immediately becomes them being persecuted and part of their supposed history of persecution.

Show me a single place where I equated conflict with persecution. I cited some examples of jewish persecution for you (denied the right to own land, forcible conversion, pogroms, blood libel) -- every single one of them the real article.

Most of those are examples of genuine persecution. Not argument from me there. But I have a problem with the denial of a desire or an asserted right being characterized in that way. Were women in Australia being persecuted because they weren't allowed to drink in certain bars in pubs? If we include the denial of asserted rights in our notion of persecution, then we are instantly awash with groups that have been continuously persecuted through their history and have never really not been. Then the whole of idea of comparison would be meaningless. Indeed, part of my intention was to imply that it is essentially meaningless anyway.

My original statement was: "Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group". Not a damn thing either of you have said refutes this.

Wow, talka bout dishonesty.

Any number of groups have been historically persecuted less than the jews -- for one, virtually every nation which now exists. For example, English have been historically persecuted less than the jews -- there have not been widespread anti-English pogroms, no blood libel or similar accusation has been leveled against them, they have not been expelled from their homeland, nor denied the right to own land, nor subjected to genocide.

You know damn well that's not the meaning of my statement. The original idea I was responding to was that Jews have been historically subjected to more persecution that anyone else. I deny this outright. If you examine global history you'll find any number of groups that have been routinely subjected to persecution.

I am beginning to think that you are an autistic idiot, Dan. Even by this most obvious of metrics -- genocide -- most groups have been persecuted less than the jews, because most groups were never subjected to anyone's serious attempt to exterminate them wholesale. Genuine genocide attempts are comparatively rare, and the Holocaust is one of the three greatest genocides in history (along with amerindian extermination and Holodomor).

Those are the only genocides you can think of in human history? And you do understand that numbers have nothing to do with it? Also, I do not regard single events such as this to be more than a single event in the asserted historical persecution of any group, however significant that single event might be. A group could be subjected to a genocidal act and be entirely wiped out without that meaning they were an especially persecuted group in an historical sense (i.e. over the period of their existence).

Dan Rowden wrote:Jews have not been historically persecuted more than any other group

I originally interpreted this statement to mean "Jews are not the most persecuted group in history". It seems that Vic has interpreted it differently - I'm not quite sure how but I suspect something like "Jews have suffered no more than any other group in history". On reflection, what Dan meant is probably midway between these interpretations - something like "The historical suffering of the Jews is not particularly significant when compared to the typical suffering of all other groups of people". Dan, can you clarify what you actually meant?

I can, but I have to say I don't believe I should have to when you look at the context in which I made the statement. The idea was that Jews have been persecuted more than anyone else. That's the notion I was responding to. There are lots of cultural groups that have been subjected to constant persecution through their history. Try telling a Gypsy that Jews have been persecuted more than they have and see how you go. Jews wish to wear this symbolic crown of persecution for the reason I stated before: their dopey religion demands it.

My statement had/has no meaning other than as a denial of the notion that Jews have been subjected to a unique level of historical persecution.